[Below is the Speaker’s statement on the Governor’s casino legislation. A hearing date has been set for Tuesday, March 18 by the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, starting at 10 a.m. in Gardner Auditorium at the State House … Posted by David Guarino, communications director for Speaker DiMasi]
When the Governor embraced casino gambling in September, I raised a number of critical questions I felt needed to be answered before we allowed a casino culture into our Commonwealth. To date, most of those questions remain unanswered and, as evidenced by a Boston Globe analysis published on Sunday, new questions are coming to light.
The Globe found that estimates for 30,000 new construction jobs from casinos are not only exaggerated, they are absurd. Add to the fact that those figures were taken from Suffolk Downs, a casino advocate, at face value and simply multiplied by three and the argument becomes even more questionable. As of today, it seems like we have a proposal where no tough questions were even asked – let alone answered.
The Massachusetts Legislature has made significant investments in sustainable economic development in recent years – from the film industry to life sciences – and those investments will pay off with real, good?paying jobs.
The Governor clearly has the burden of convincing the Legislature that this casino plan should be adopted. So far, the case has not been made, the evidence isn’t there and the Governor’s arguments for casinos are clearly losing credibility.
The numbers are bad on both sides, ranging from the Deval free wheeling estimate of jobs to the laughable Bosley Math. I guess it’s only fair to fight bad number with the same.
<
p>I’m surprised that Patrick hasn’t made some audible attempt to defend his estimates.
Patrick needs to respond. The longer this thing goes on without details and background on where the numbers came from the worse it is for Patrick.
I guess the governor isn’t allowed to anticipate other construction projects that might materialize in the communities where, all of a sudden, there’s going to be a great flurry of new economic activity. Also, 30,000 as opposed to one of the Globe’s solicited estimates, >20,000, doesn’t quite get to the point of “absurd”, in my opinion. Could this be mere rhetorical damage control from DiMasi after his golf excursions of weeks past? (“See, I haven’t been unduly influenced at all!”)
The range for job creation is anywhere from 5-10 thousand. Calling 30,000 jobs is
<
p>1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous
<
p>OR
<
p>Absurd.
For each $1B spent on construction, it is fair to say $300M is for labor (estimates range from 27% to 33%). So the question is, how much work will the $300M provide for the workers of the Commonwealth? And if the remainder of the cost ($700M) includes materials from within the State, there is additional work provided in those jobs. Whatever that total is, it is a lot better than nothing, as I am sure those looking for work would agree.
Scott Fisher, an economist for the New Orleans gambling consulting firm The Innovation Group, said in an interview that labor costs for casino projects typically run from 27 percent to 33 percent. Those are the figures he used in a 39-page study for the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, headed by Sheldon Adelson, which is also proposing a casino in the Interstate 495 corridor of Boston’s western suburbs.
<
p>In his study, Fisher looked at the $2.85 billion casino in Singapore being developed by Sands and projected the creation of about 6,900 new construction jobs. Adelson has not detailed how much money Sands would spend on a casino in Massachusetts, but Fisher’s study said a casino in this state would be “comparable in scale” to the Singapore development. Under that formula, three casinos built at a cost of $2.85 billion each would create 20,700.
<
p>”I’d say the governor is overplaying his hand,” said Fisher.
<
p>(Sean P. Murphy, the Boston Globe)
<
p>So I guess the relevant question is, how big are these casinos supposed to be?
that the question is do we as citizens of the Commonwealth want large scale casinos plunked onto mature communities with established (and limited) infrastructure and local economies? And seriously, what can the market bear?
<
p>The last thing the Commonwealth needs is to be supplementing a saturated casino market down the road.
<
p>BTW, the casino proposed in Palmer has been defined as a $1 Billion dollar project with 1,500 construction jobs.
Is there that kind of anti-casino consensus in the towns that would host them? Does anybody (besides Deval and the potential owners) actually want them?
I recall that Palmer approved a casino by referendum in a 55:45 vote. And the location isn’t bad either, just off the Mass Pike, in an area where the biggest attraction is otherwise a mountain of used and discarded tires!
The issue a regional issue in reference to impact. The host community may garner property tax benefits whereas neighboring towns receive none but have the traffic, pollution and other known negative collateral and costly problems.
<
p>True, but it is worth debating the various claims. For example, Brimfield officials have publicly stated the need for a new school and a Chief of Police if a casino is built. Brimfield is a small town with a very big antique fair that brings tens of thousands of people regularly into downtown. Yet, with that massive influx, the Town manages its affairs quite well without a Chief of Police. Suddenly, a casino located 10 miles west will cause the town to hire a Chief? Plus, build a new school?
<
p>Another neighboring town, Monson. The landed gentry, chocolate and wine sipping crowd have rallied around in opposition, fearful of the traffic on Main Street. Yet, it’s hard to imagine that Main Street, Route 32 through the town will be the main thoroughfare from Connecticut. A few maybe, but most will take the I-84 then the Mass Pike.
<
p>Even if, perhaps a bit more traffic would be welcome to the owners of the business located on Main Street that struggle to make a go of those properties. Some traffic, sure, but disruptive? I’m sceptical.
<
p>No question that some of the contiguous towns have legitimate concerns, but, just like the Governor’s bad math is and should be exposed, so too should the opposition’s bad math and false fears.
while other towns are eager for jobs and economic activity, it starts to smell like a bit of a class issue to me. “Oh, heavens, the bad element it will bring!” and so forth. Unfortunately, Massachusetts has historically allowed cities and towns to regulate development and zoning without much reference to “regional” planning- and most towns guard that right rather jealously. If we want to change that approach, fine, but we can’t have it both ways.
Class issue. Ya think?
<
p>I agree with your assessment that cities/towns should be allowed to regulate their own development.
<
p>I was initially anti-Casino, but now have abandoned that pre-conception after hearing the opposition’s points.
<
p>The proposed Palmer site: It’s currently unused land with a stellar view of a mountain of junk tires, which if you dig deep enough is probably an EPA site.
<
p>Palmer has indicated support through referendum.
<
p>Palmer is a town with a site that has easy access to the Pike, thereby minimizing the effect of traffic on secondary roads.
<
p>Temper the anti-casino hysteria (crime! Prostitution! Traffic! Pestilence!) with the Patrick cheerleading (Gimme a J. Jobs! Billions of them!) and the middle ground is that probably a casino–in Palmer or Chicopee at least–is a legitimate use of private property in an area that wouldn’t do harm.
Regionalizing is necessary on many levels of local government including education, public health, purchasing and possibly some law enforcement (communications). Each of the mid/smaller communities trying to satisfy unfunded mandates is unsustainable and not working….leads people to thinking dumb ideas like casinos are solutions.
I don't think different preferences for rural vs. developed/urban living is classism. Labelling the choices people make or the vision they have for their community/region doesn't need to have a perjorative twist…it just is.
If there were any evidence that the mitigation proposed by the Administration were any more accurate than their job lies hype projections there might be more buy-in from potential regions. There just isn't enough money generated by a casino to mitigate the infrastructure, environmental, education, housing, transportation, traffic and oversight issues and make profits.